Zevachim 113a (קיג.) — the Talmud in English

b

Laying of hands

on the offering,

and slaughtering on the north side,

and placement

of the blood

around

the altar, with two placements that are four ,

and waving

and bringing

the meal-offerings to the altar—all these are practiced on a communal bama but not on an individual bama.

Rabbi Yehuda says: No meal-offering

is brought

on a bama

at all! [Even on a communal bama ].

The Mishna continues to detail the laws distinguishing between a communal bama and an individual bama:

And priesthood,

service performed by priests ,

and sacred garments,

priestly garments,

and sacred vessels

41, and a pleasing fragrance,

as it is prohibited to roast the limbs before placing them on the altar: if they are roasted before being placed on the altar, they do not have a “pleasing fragrance” when they are subsequently placed on the altar. On a bama, however, it is permitted to place them there, since one need not have the intention that they be “for the sake of fragrance” ,

and a partition for the blood,

the red cord that was placed around the middle of the altar’s height to distinguish between blood placed above and blood placed below,

and the washing of hands and feet,

none of all these practices applies on an individual bama.

But time,

the disqualification and pigul of an offering resulting from the intention to perform its service beyond its designated time, and

the leftovers,

the liability of karet for eating what remains of an offering after the time allotted for eating it ,

and the impure person,

the liability for eating impure meat, or the disqualification of an impure person from offering and eating — these laws

are equal

in

this and that!

On an individual bama and on a communal bama.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “The red heifer that one slaughtered outside its designated trench.”

And we raised a difficulty:

What is meant by ‘outside its trench’?

Which place is disqualified for performing its service, such that the tanna had to teach us that if he performed it there he is not liable for slaughtering outside? Surely it is not disqualified merely because he performed it somewhere other than the place designated for it. And we explain:

Reish Lakish said: Outside the place examined for it.

He slaughtered it in a place that had not first been examined to ensure that there was no hidden grave there, although it was stated concerning the red heifer that it must be prepared in a pure place .

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him

to Reish Lakish:

But the entire Land of Israel is examined

for impurity!?

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For example, if he slaughtered it inside the wall

of Jerusalem, which is not the place where it is to be prepared, as it is written: “And he shall take it outside the camp” .

And we raised a difficulty:

And let Rabbi Yoḥanan establish it

as referring to a case where

he slaughtered it outside the wall,

which is nevertheless disqualified even though it is the place where it is to be prepared, when it was slaughtered

not opposite the entrance

of the Sanctuary.

For Rav Adda bar Ahava said: If he slaughtered it not opposite the entrance, it is disqualified, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter—

and he shall sprinkle”;

slaughtering was compared to sprinkling, to teach that

just as its sprinkling

is explicitly required to be

opposite the entrance, so too its slaughtering

shall be

opposite the entrance 48.

And if you would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not compare slaughtering to sprinkling, and he considers it valid when slaughtered not opposite the entrance, and therefore he had to establish the case as one who slaughtered it inside the wall:

But it was stated: If he slaughtered it not opposite the entrance, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is disqualified

because he derived by analogy

“And he shall slaughter—

and he shall sprinkle.” Reish Lakish said: It is valid,

as it is written:

“Outside the camp he shall slaughter,”

indicating that slaughtering is valid wherever it takes place, provided that it is outside the camp.

And it was likewise stated: If he burned it not opposite the entrance, Rabbi Yoḥanan said it is disqualified, and Rabbi Oshaya said it is valid.

The basis of their dispute is as follows:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said it is disqualified

because it is stated:

“And he shall burn”—

“and he shall sprinkle,”

to compare burning to sprinkling, which is explicitly required to be opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary.

And Rabbi Oshaya said it is valid, for the verse says: “It shall be burned upon its remains,”

and we expound:

The place where it separates for death,

where its life departs at the completion of its final convulsions—that is, even when it is not opposite the entrance, since no place was designated for the departure of its life—

there shall be its burning.

If so, it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan not establish our Mishna as referring to one who slaughtered the red heifer outside, not opposite the entrance, since according to his view it is disqualified?

And we answer:

They said,

Rabbi Yoḥanan

was stating a matter of novelty:

he came to teach us a novel point. It is not only if he slaughtered it

outside the wall

that it is disqualified,

for

it was

far removed

from the site of sanctity.

Rather, even inside the wall, since it was close

to the site of sanctity,

one might say that it is valid; he teaches us

that it is disqualified, because it must be slaughtered specifically “outside the camp” .

The Master said: Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him

to Reish Lakish:

But the entire Land of Israel is examined.

And we raised a difficulty:

With regard to what do they disagree?

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, who disagreed over whether the Land of Israel is considered examined or not—what is the basis of their dispute?

And we explain:

One

—Reish Lakish—

held: The Flood descended

upon the Land of Israel,

and the bones of those who died in the Flood sank into it, so there is concern for impurity everywhere.

And the other,

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

held: The Flood did not descend

upon the Land of Israel, and consequently it is examined for impurity .

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And both of them expounded the same verse,

and each explained it according to his approach: "

Son of man, say to her: You are a land that is not purified; rain was not poured upon you on the day of fury."

Rabbi Yoḥanan held: The verse is expressing astonishment,

and it is stated as a question:

Land! Why are you not pure? Did rain not fall upon you on the day of fury!?

That is, during the days of the Flood.

And Reish Lakish held:

that it is read

according to its straightforward meaning,

as a calm statement:

Land, you are not pure! Who says that rain did not fall upon you on the day of fury?

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

We learned in tractate Parah [3b] that they were stringent concerning its purity, and therefore,

courtyards in Jerusalem were built upon bedrock, and beneath them

the bedrock was

hollow, because

they were concerned that perhaps beneath the bedrock there was

a grave of the abyss,

and through the hollow there was an interruption, so that the impurity could no longer rise upward.

And they would bring

to those courtyards

pregnant women,

and they would give birth and raise there

their

children for the red heifer.

For the children [seven- and eight-year-olds] who were born and raised there while being guarded against impurity would draw the waters of purification and sprinkle them upon the priest who burned the red heifer.

And when they wished to go and draw living water from the Shiloah,

they would bring oxen,

and upon them

doors in order to create a separation between the children and the ground, so that they would not form a tent over a grave of the abyss as they went to the Shiloah,

and the children would sit upon them, with stone cups in their hands.

This was one of the stringencies of purity: all the procedures of the red heifer were to be performed with vessels that are not susceptible to impurity, and a stone vessel is not susceptible to impurity.

They reached the Shiloah, descended, and drew the water. They ascended and sat in their places.

We have therefore learned explicitly in the beraita that Eretz Yisrael is not presumed inspected because of the concern for a grave of the abyss. This is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan?

We answer:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: They instituted a stringency for the red heifer,

to be concerned initially about a grave of the abyss, since it was performed by a priest who had immersed that day [they would render the priest impure on the day of the burning of the red heifer and immerse him, in order to refute the Sadducees, who said that the red heifer may not be performed by one who had immersed that day; and so that people would not treat it lightly, they instituted many stringencies of purity for it]. But if he slaughtered it in a place that was not inspected, it is valid after the fact as a matter of basic law, since all of Eretz Yisrael is presumed inspected, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

It was taught in a beraita:

There was an incident in which bones were found in the Chamber of the Wood Shed

in the Temple,

and they sought to decree impurity upon Jerusalem. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: Is it not shameful and disgraceful for us to decree impurity upon the city of our forefathers!?

Is Jerusalem not purer than other places

Where are the dead of the Flood? Where are the slain of Nebuchadnezzar?

They are not found here but are found elsewhere?!

Rabbi Yoḥanan inferred:

From the fact that he said “

“Where are the dead of the Flood?” does this not mean that they did not exist

in Eretz Yisrael? This is difficult for Reish Lakish, who said that Eretz Yisrael is not presumed inspected because of the concern for the dead of the Flood?

Reish Lakish replied to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

And according to your reasoning,

that you explained Rabbi Yehoshua’s intent in saying “Where are the dead of the Flood?” to be that they had never been there, would you say the same concerning

those slain by Nebuchadnezzar,

that

here too they never existed

in Eretz Yisrael?!

Rather,

you must explain the statement “Where are the dead of Nebuchadnezzar” as follows: although indeed they

did exist

initially,

they were relocated

to a cemetery.

Here too,

what Rabbi Yehoshua said, “Where are the dead of the Flood,” means that they

did exist, and were relocated.